Smith v Parole Board [2003] EWCA Civ 1269 (31 July 2003)

Smith v Parole Board [2003] EWCA Civ 1269 (31 July 2003)

Recall to prison during the unexpired portion of a determinate sentence is authorised by the original sentencing court; neither Article 5 nor Article 6 ECHR is engaged so as to require an oral hearing, and common law fairness does not require an oral hearing where the primary facts are undisputed and the assessment is of risk, not fact.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1269
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Smith; Defendant/respondent: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole, Recall to Prison, Procedural Fairness, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review, Common Law Fairness
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Parole Recall to Prison Procedural Fairness Article 5 ECHR Article 6 ECHR +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smith

Claimant/applicant

The Parole Board

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recall of a determinate sentence prisoner to prison by the Parole Board without an oral hearing breaches Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or common law fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

Recall to prison during the unexpired portion of a determinate sentence is authorised by the original sentencing court; neither Article 5 nor Article 6 ECHR is engaged so as to require an oral hearing, and common law fairness does not require an oral hearing where the primary facts are undisputed and the assessment is of risk, not fact.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No oral hearing required